[Ruck] Can you create a ruck by PULLING in an opponent?

[didds]

WRT the no-ruck tactic.

Red 10 is tackled by Blue 6, and presents the ball correctly and legally towards his own side.
Blue 6 releases.
Red 8 stands over the ball

Blues all stand back from the tackle and refuse to engage red 8 to create a ruck.

Can red 8 grab a nearby blue player (ie less than arms length, so less that 1m from the ball) pull him onto himself and thus create a ruck?

(I'm not wanting to restart the excellent debate we have had regarding Italy and England's approach here) Ive read conflicting answers to this point ... Poite seemed to think "No" but other refs albeit not international ones have opined a different viewpoint.

didds

 

[Phil E]

I would have said Yes...until Poite said No.
Now I just don't know which is right.

 

[beckett50]

No. There is nothing in Law that allows this.

The Maul Law makes specific reference to players bound or caught in.

Ruck is all about players in contact, and therefore you cannot force this contact since that would mean, by logical conclusion, that you would also have to make the players bind to each other

 

[DocY]

I'd say "it depends"

If a player is clearly intentionally not joining the ruck, then pulling him in would be playing him without the ball.

But if he was intentionally joining the ruck (or proto ruck) and he was given a pull (for whatever reason) I don't see the sense in penalising it.

 

[didds]

So there was nothing to prevent Italy placing "post" defenders immediately to the side of the tackle to prevent the pick and drive?

(because they weren't!)

didds

 

[DocY]

So there was nothing to prevent Italy placing "post" defenders immediately to the side of the tackle to prevent the pick and drive?

(because they weren't!)

didds

As I'm picturing it, if they're immediately to the side of the tackle contact could be made without them being pulled in (and they might look like they're entering from the side) so they'd have to leave at least a bit of a gap.

 

[ChrisR]

Yes, you can. If a player is within arms reach then is within the tackle zone and subject being pulled into and forming a ruck. Otherwise the referee is in the unwelcome position of determining whether a player is joining voluntarily.

 

[FlipFlop]

I think you can, and should be allowed to. Clearly Poite thought differently. It would have been nice to have had an England player pose an intelligent question to Poite about that: Along the lines of: "The law says we only need contact near the ball to have a ruck - so why is that pulling in (or just touching the defender) not allowed? "

There is of course and argument about playing the man without the ball.

 

[OB..]

If you pull an opponent into a ruck, the odds are that he will be "joining" in front of the hindmost foot - a PK offence.

It cannot be right that you can force an opponent to commit an offence.

 

[crossref]

a sensible answer seems to me to depend on how far away the opponent is, when pulled.

- grabbing an opponent who is 50cm from you seems to me to form a ruck.
- stretching out sideways to grab someone who is standing 1.5m back, and suceeeding in hauling them in against their will seems to me to not to form a ruck (it's playing man without the ball)


(a typically unhelpful referee sort of answer ! 'it depends')

 

[didds]

Good call CR - in my head it was more the "opponent within an armlength's easy reach" scenario. Which for a 2nd row could well be a metre.

didds

 

[Paule23]

I would say no. Although you would have players in contact over the ball, firstly an element of choice has been removed by the attacking team, and the defender is unlikely to be bound properly. Do we now ping them for an incorrect bind if they go into compete or win the ball?

 

[didds]

You dont; need to be bound to CREATE a ruck, only to join it.

Law 16
DEFINITIONS
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground

16.1 (b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent

my bold.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

I am with RP on his decision and statement that you can't do it.

You can't pull someone out of a maul and it is, conversely, logical and equitable, that you can't go pulling someone in, to a ruck in this instance, unless it it is expressly permitted within the laws.

 

[Balones]

If you pull an opponent into a ruck, the odds are that he will be "joining" in front of the hindmost foot - a PK offence.

It cannot be right that you can force an opponent to commit an offence.

Totally and utterly agree. You are playing a man without the ball. The laws clearly state how you should join a maul. Any referee that allows this is letting themselves open to a 'conflict' situation which could escalate. Any referee not stopping this or preventing this would be censured in any report I wrote.
RP was 100% correct and I am amazed that anyone should take an opposite opinion on this matter. Other matters I can understand.

 

[ChuckieB]

....does it then become a sanctionable offence which would then presumably have to be included within the laws as not likely covered elsewhere?

 

[Balones]

....does it then become a sanctionable offence which would then presumably have to be included within the laws as not likely covered elsewhere?

Playing a player without the ball is already sanctionable.

 

[Phil E]

Playing a player without the ball is already sanctionable.

So how do we ever get a ruck?

 

[Balones]

So how do we ever get a ruck?

It is an action that is precisely covered in the laws.

 

[DocY]

I think there may be two parts to this: can you pull an opponent in to form a ruck? and can you pull an opponent into an already-existing ruck?

For the first, I think it's quite clear - a ruck is formed by two players coming together over the ball. To me that strongly implies a measure of intent from both parties and "come together" is quite different to "be pulled together".

The question about pulling opponents into an already-existing ruck is, I think, more arguable, but I'd still say that in general it shouldn't be allowed.